Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

My period gripe is the way everybody costumes in grey and brown, even though we know that past fashions were as (or more) colorful than they are now, simply because the actual examples of clothing we still have to look at it have lost their dyes over time.

Also ancient Egypt/Greece/Rome were less monochromatic than they are often portrayed:

One thing I've come to realize about all the Aniquity Period Pieces how everyone's got the stateliest King's English going on in the way they talk, when, well, that may not have even been CLOSE to the way Romans/etc would've sounded in the original tongue. The whole patois of the speech was probably nothing of the sort.

Sometimes I wonder if Julius Caesar's whole cadence and meter would be more along the lines of, say, some guy from Kentucky. It's the sort of thing we just won't ever know.

He'd sound vaguely Italian.

Not quite, actually. When Rome fell, the people in power hired Plutarch to make a new language because people were done with the tongue of the empire. So he prettymuch crafted the Italian language to with the intent of being very unlike whatever they were using in Rome before.

I mean, it was Romantic so it fed off a lot of the Iberian and Gaul dialects in terms of structure, so it wasn't all new, but...yeah. Italian didn't exist during the actual Roman Empire.

That is uh... Not how the history of language works. Or history (Rome didn't really fall at a well-defined point in time, it changed and/or faded away). Citation needed, to say the least.

If it is still the first of April where you are and you are trolling me, well done.

My period gripe is the way everybody costumes in grey and brown, even though we know that past fashions were as (or more) colorful than they are now, simply because the actual examples of clothing we still have to look at it have lost their dyes over time.

Also ancient Egypt/Greece/Rome were less monochromatic than they are often portrayed:

One thing I've come to realize about all the Aniquity Period Pieces how everyone's got the stateliest King's English going on in the way they talk, when, well, that may not have even been CLOSE to the way Romans/etc would've sounded in the original tongue. The whole patois of the speech was probably nothing of the sort.

Sometimes I wonder if Julius Caesar's whole cadence and meter would be more along the lines of, say, some guy from Kentucky. It's the sort of thing we just won't ever know.

He'd sound vaguely Italian.

Not quite, actually. When Rome fell, the people in power hired Plutarch to make a new language because people were done with the tongue of the empire. So he prettymuch crafted the Italian language to with the intent of being very unlike whatever they were using in Rome before.

I mean, it was Romantic so it fed off a lot of the Iberian and Gaul dialects in terms of structure, so it wasn't all new, but...yeah. Italian didn't exist during the actual Roman Empire.

That is uh... Not how the history of language works. Or history (Rome didn't really fall at a well-defined point in time, it changed and/or faded away). Citation needed, to say the least.

If it is still the first of April where you are and you are trolling me, well done.

Yes, and Plutarch died a few centuries before the fall of Rome (in the west), so this seems especially unlikely.

My period gripe is the way everybody costumes in grey and brown, even though we know that past fashions were as (or more) colorful than they are now, simply because the actual examples of clothing we still have to look at it have lost their dyes over time.

Also ancient Egypt/Greece/Rome were less monochromatic than they are often portrayed:

One thing I've come to realize about all the Aniquity Period Pieces how everyone's got the stateliest King's English going on in the way they talk, when, well, that may not have even been CLOSE to the way Romans/etc would've sounded in the original tongue. The whole patois of the speech was probably nothing of the sort.

Sometimes I wonder if Julius Caesar's whole cadence and meter would be more along the lines of, say, some guy from Kentucky. It's the sort of thing we just won't ever know.

He'd sound vaguely Italian.

Not quite, actually. When Rome fell, the people in power hired Plutarch to make a new language because people were done with the tongue of the empire. So he prettymuch crafted the Italian language to with the intent of being very unlike whatever they were using in Rome before.

I mean, it was Romantic so it fed off a lot of the Iberian and Gaul dialects in terms of structure, so it wasn't all new, but...yeah. Italian didn't exist during the actual Roman Empire.

That is uh... Not how the history of language works. Or history (Rome didn't really fall at a well-defined point in time, it changed and/or faded away). Citation needed, to say the least.

If it is still the first of April where you are and you are trolling me, well done.

Yes, and Plutarch died a few centuries before the fall of Rome (in the west), so this seems unlikely.

Watched Battle Royale Directors Cut tonight, I found it amusing in spots, endearing in others, and just sort of ridiculous overall. That said I enjoyed my time watching it. My wife was ambivalent yet awake throughout (which is usually a sign she enjoyed a film) but I only roped her into watching it because I told her it "it's like the original Hunger Games".

My period gripe is the way everybody costumes in grey and brown, even though we know that past fashions were as (or more) colorful than they are now, simply because the actual examples of clothing we still have to look at it have lost their dyes over time.

Also ancient Egypt/Greece/Rome were less monochromatic than they are often portrayed:

One thing I've come to realize about all the Aniquity Period Pieces how everyone's got the stateliest King's English going on in the way they talk, when, well, that may not have even been CLOSE to the way Romans/etc would've sounded in the original tongue. The whole patois of the speech was probably nothing of the sort.

Sometimes I wonder if Julius Caesar's whole cadence and meter would be more along the lines of, say, some guy from Kentucky. It's the sort of thing we just won't ever know.

He'd sound vaguely Italian.

Not quite, actually. When Rome fell, the people in power hired Plutarch to make a new language because people were done with the tongue of the empire. So he prettymuch crafted the Italian language to with the intent of being very unlike whatever they were using in Rome before.

I mean, it was Romantic so it fed off a lot of the Iberian and Gaul dialects in terms of structure, so it wasn't all new, but...yeah. Italian didn't exist during the actual Roman Empire.

Well, the Norwegians tried to create a 'new' language when they became independent from Denmark but 125 years later most still write and speak the old language. Dialect might be a better word for it instead of language.

I'm also guessing that the fact that Latin-Americans pronounce Spanish differently from the actual Spaniard would mean that while the language may change, the pronouncement stay pretty close, so that Italian is most likely pronounced much like they pronounced Latin.

Than again, I don't speak any of the four languages I just mentioned so I might just be talking out of my ass. Just like in movies!! (Got that back on topic, oh yeah)

That's not particularly true. Latin scholars are pretty sure that the Catholic Church pronounces all its Latin wrong because the church is strongly influenced by the dominance of Italians.

Also, I watched a recording of the last stage production of Rent, and is it just me or does the movie seem to be pushing the view that the poor are poor by choice and are no good layabouts and terrible people?

I felt like she was there just to explain Zuckerberg's characterization to the audience, which I found a little insulting.

She didn't explain much at all.

She mostly seemed there as someone Zuckerberg could talk to in the deposition timeline so we could get some back and forth and see what Zuckerberg was thinking and as a way to easily explain the ultimate outcome of the whole mess to the audience (through Zuckerberg)

I felt like she was there just to explain Zuckerberg's characterization to the audience, which I found a little insulting.

She didn't explain much at all.

She mostly seemed there as someone Zuckerberg could talk to in the deposition timeline so we could get some back and forth and see what Zuckerberg was thinking and as a way to easily explain the ultimate outcome of the whole mess to the audience (through Zuckerberg)

At times, she seems more like a therapist than a random legal associate.

Spoiler:

Mark Zuckerberg: I'm not a bad guy.
Marylin Delpy: I know that. When there's emotional testimony, I assume that 85% of it is exaggeration.
Mark Zuckerberg: And the other fifteen?
Marylin Delpy: Perjury. Creation myths need a Devil.

Marylin Delpy: [Last Lines] You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be.

Why on Earth would someone in her position speak so intimately with someone she's just met, much less attempt to summarize his motivations and foibles for him? Is she speaking for his benefit or for the audience's?

She's obviously a plot device, but I think people confuse her last line as the conclusion of the film's views on the character, rather than just one more opinion.

The last words on the protagonist delivered immediately before the conclusion aren't just going to be some minor character's opinion. If her assessment didn't carry more heft than that, then it wouldn't be worth hearing at that point when the audience has already developed its own impressions of Zuckerberg.

She's obviously a plot device, but I think people confuse her last line as the conclusion of the film's views on the character, rather than just one more opinion.

The last words on the protagonist delivered immediately before the conclusion aren't just going to be some minor character's opinion. If her assessment didn't carry more heft than that, then it wouldn't be worth hearing at that point when the audience has already developed its own impressions of Zuckerberg.

I think it's a flaw in the movie that they didn't undercut her opinion at all. Or if you like, it's a flaw in the movie that she baldly states the author's view. I prefer the way Citizen Kane handles it: "I don't think any one thing could explain a man's life..."

I'm not certain I agree with the use of the character, but I think when you're dealing with an actual living person and you're a director who's opinion is not negative (or at least mostly not negative iirc from the commentary) it becomes a reasonable choice.

Just watched The Dead Zone. Overall, a big 'meh'. I understand it's regarded as the best Stephen King adaptation but I can't help but disagree. Granted, I haven't read the book. But I was underwhelmed. I found Walken's performance was hokey, a lot of the dialogue was poorly performed, and while this probably has more to do with King's writing, the plot was... predictable. I was waiting for a twist, something to make this guy's ability more intriguing. Something to dig into. What I got was hardly the case. It presented this big moral dilemma at the end but it got glossed over way too quickly for my taste.

I also felt like it wasn't suited to Cronenberg's talents. Knowing this was part of the same run of films that included Videodrome and The Fly, I'm wondering why this film failed to engage me the way those do.

That's three films I've watched recently now where I'm left wanting more. I need to break this streak soon.

I just saw Moneyball. It was frustrating to watch. Billy Beane seemed like a hypocrite. He criticized the talent scouts for outdated thinking and being closeminded to new ways of doing their jobs. However, Beane was just as stubborn and unwilling to compromise. Whenever someone tried to explain their diasgreement with Beane, he just dismissed them outright.

Compromise is essential for anything to function in society. I couldn't get past Billy Beane's unwillingness to incorporate elements of both schools of baseball management.

Certainly both methods have assets and flaws. I was annoyed by the implication that SABR-metrics was infallible and the old-fashioned ways were completely flawed. Both ways have merit.

So saw 21 jump street over the weekend. Fun movie, and completely tongue in cheek, which is what makes this movie work. Stupid stuff like "huh... why didn't that gasoline truck explode?" worked well.

And I saw Wrath of the Titans. It was a blast, I have no idea why people are bashing it so hard. Needed more of Zeus and Hades' Jedi buddies force blasting demons and Bill Nighy missed a chance to say"do you fear death" again.
Toby Kebbell was also a surprise.

And I saw Wrath of the Titans. It was a blast, I have no idea why people are bashing it so hard. Needed more of Zeus and Hades' Jedi buddies force blasting demons and Bill Nighy missed a chance to say"do you fear death" again.
Toby Kebbell was also a surprise.

I agree. It was entertaining to watch and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I had the same reaction as when I saw Snakes on a Plane. That it was an ultimately forgettable movie, but it gave me exactly what I expected!

On average, I'd say it was a little better than John Carter, simply because it was acceptable through the entire run, instead of jumping between awful and awesome like John Carter.

I just saw Moneyball. It was frustrating to watch. Billy Beane seemed like a hypocrite. He criticized the talent scouts for outdated thinking and being closeminded to new ways of doing their jobs. However, Beane was just as stubborn and unwilling to compromise. Whenever someone tried to explain their diasgreement with Beane, he just dismissed them outright.

Compromise is essential for anything to function in society. I couldn't get past Billy Beane's unwillingness to incorporate elements of both schools of baseball management.

Certainly both methods have assets and flaws. I was annoyed by the implication that SABR-metrics was infallible and the old-fashioned ways were completely flawed. Both ways have merit.

The movie kind of portrays the two camps in the way it was going down in the early 2000s. Modern front offices (well the good ones, anyway), including Beane himself in Oakland, now take an approach that combines the two.

I felt like she was there just to explain Zuckerberg's characterization to the audience, which I found a little insulting.

She didn't explain much at all.

She mostly seemed there as someone Zuckerberg could talk to in the deposition timeline so we could get some back and forth and see what Zuckerberg was thinking and as a way to easily explain the ultimate outcome of the whole mess to the audience (through Zuckerberg)

At times, she seems more like a therapist than a random legal associate.

Spoiler:

Mark Zuckerberg: I'm not a bad guy.
Marylin Delpy: I know that. When there's emotional testimony, I assume that 85% of it is exaggeration.
Mark Zuckerberg: And the other fifteen?
Marylin Delpy: Perjury. Creation myths need a Devil.

Marylin Delpy: [Last Lines] You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be.

Why on Earth would someone in her position speak so intimately with someone she's just met, much less attempt to summarize his motivations and foibles for him? Is she speaking for his benefit or for the audience's?

I don't see why the spoiled part counts at all. That's more a catch-all for the movies "this isn't exactly the truth, just a story" premise.

The last one is just her position. She doesn't think he's a bad guy (he treats her very nicely in their few conversations and is very polite and all that) ... and yet he's involved in some truly dickish reprehensible things.

Her last line isn't a summary of his motivations because it doesn't explain them. It never touches on why he does what he does. It's just a summary of his actions. He's a nice guy who does really dickish things.

What her comment doesn't answer and what the movie seems to want us to think about is why he did that shit.

And I think that's the interesting question even in real life cause around all the story-telling going on, the facts of the actual case are still there. In real life, it's even more confusing why everything went down the way it did.

I just saw Moneyball. It was frustrating to watch. Billy Beane seemed like a hypocrite. He criticized the talent scouts for outdated thinking and being closeminded to new ways of doing their jobs. However, Beane was just as stubborn and unwilling to compromise. Whenever someone tried to explain their diasgreement with Beane, he just dismissed them outright.

Compromise is essential for anything to function in society. I couldn't get past Billy Beane's unwillingness to incorporate elements of both schools of baseball management.

Certainly both methods have assets and flaws. I was annoyed by the implication that SABR-metrics was infallible and the old-fashioned ways were completely flawed. Both ways have merit.

it seemed like it worked

and the old ways that they showed included judging players based on names and faces. I don't really think there's room to compromise between statsstatsstats and random elements we choose to look at with a given player. that's the point.

I just saw Moneyball. It was frustrating to watch. Billy Beane seemed like a hypocrite. He criticized the talent scouts for outdated thinking and being closeminded to new ways of doing their jobs. However, Beane was just as stubborn and unwilling to compromise. Whenever someone tried to explain their diasgreement with Beane, he just dismissed them outright.

Compromise is essential for anything to function in society. I couldn't get past Billy Beane's unwillingness to incorporate elements of both schools of baseball management.

Certainly both methods have assets and flaws. I was annoyed by the implication that SABR-metrics was infallible and the old-fashioned ways were completely flawed. Both ways have merit.

it seemed like it worked

and the old ways that they showed included judging players based on names and faces. I don't really think there's room to compromise between statsstatsstats and random elements we choose to look at with a given player. that's the point.

Also wasn't it important to the plan that it be implemented completely or not at all? I got the impression that it wouldn't work unless they committed to it whole-hog.

Although if teams are using a hybrid version now then I guess that's not true.

he inhabits the body of the girl's husband forever now. That's creepy. How is he going to go on living that life now? What the fuuuuuck.

Spoiler:

That goes into Fridge Horror territory. For all we know the husband's virtually "dead" with Jake Gyllenhaal possessing his body now. :shock:

That's precisely what happened. I mean I suppose in a way it's not too bad:

Spoiler:

The guy was dead either way, because it's not like Gyllenhaal could "jump out" of the body, so I suppose living on is better than nothing, but it is super weird/creepy that either the girl is never going to know that her friend turned into a different person, or at some point Gyllenhaal is going to have to sit her down and say "hey remember that day on the train, actually I became a different person that day so the old guy you knew is basically gone."

I enjoyed Source Code, and I didn't have much of a problem with the ending (although I can see why people would feel otherwise). What annoyed me about the movie was how much better it could've been.

Spoiler:

There are things it only vaguely or tangentially touched on that it really could've explored in more detail. Disabled soldiers coming home from war, disabled soldiers (or perfectly fine soldiers) being exploited by the military, the ethics of wiping his memory and using him the next time a terrorist attack popped up... I didn't mind that we got a sci-fi thriller, but I would totally have loved meditations on the nature of disability and service. I mean, Blade Runner could've just been a sci-fi neo-noir but it took on themes about humanity and memory and so on. Source Code had all the pieces on the board to do that, but it never really got into the meat of it. Not to mention the terrorist MacGuffin could've at least been interesting. I mean, it's not like he made the movie worse, but "weirdo patriot who wants the world to be reborn from the ashes" is just lazy and uninteresting.

he inhabits the body of the girl's husband forever now. That's creepy. How is he going to go on living that life now? What the fuuuuuck.

Spoiler:

That goes into Fridge Horror territory. For all we know the husband's virtually "dead" with Jake Gyllenhaal possessing his body now. :shock:

That's precisely what happened. I mean I suppose in a way it's not too bad:

Spoiler:

The guy was dead either way, because it's not like Gyllenhaal could "jump out" of the body, so I suppose living on is better than nothing, but it is super weird/creepy that either the girl is never going to know that her friend turned into a different person, or at some point Gyllenhaal is going to have to sit her down and say "hey remember that day on the train, actually I became a different person that day so the old guy you knew is basically gone."

I enjoyed Source Code, and I didn't have much of a problem with the ending (although I can see why people would feel otherwise). What annoyed me about the movie was how much better it could've been.

Spoiler:

There are things it only vaguely or tangentially touched on that it really could've explored in more detail. Disabled soldiers coming home from war, disabled soldiers (or perfectly fine soldiers) being exploited by the military, the ethics of wiping his memory and using him the next time a terrorist attack popped up... I didn't mind that we got a sci-fi thriller, but I would totally have loved meditations on the nature of disability and service. I mean, Blade Runner could've just been a sci-fi neo-noir but it took on themes about humanity and memory and so on. Source Code had all the pieces on the board to do that, but it never really got into the meat of it. Not to mention the terrorist MacGuffin could've at least been interesting. I mean, it's not like he made the movie worse, but "weirdo patriot who wants the world to be reborn from the ashes" is just lazy and uninteresting.

Maybe the creators did want to go in that direction but the investors didn't. Avatar did the same thing, only I doubt Cameron had any intention of fleshing out Jake's story beyond

Yeah I mean I dunno why movies turn out the way they do rather than some other way, and I'm sure that plenty of stuff turns to shit for reasons that aren't at all the writer's fault or the director's fault. Source Code just seemed particularly ripe for excellence beyond what it provided.